I agree it's a shame Grosjean and Raikkonen weren't both on form at the same point of the season; Germany was pretty cool where they were both chasing for the win but aside from that it's either been one or the other.

Would they have gotten 3rd in the championship? Perhaps. But I don't think they'd have done better than that.

I can't help but think Hamilton or Alonso would have dragged the E21 to the Brazilian GP, still in WDC contention.Raikkonnen and Grosjean flubbed it.

Nonsense. Hamilton and Alonso couldn't even keep up with their own teammates throughout the season on a race by race basis. There is too little between the drivers for conclusions like this to be valid.

My first reaction to this post was that Räikkönen doesn't need defending. But then I realised that, depending on whose PR-nonsense one is partial to, it could mean defending Hamilton or Alonso or Räikkönen!

But whichever of those three drivers I look at, I still feel that Lotus's real problem wasn't in the driver's department (apart perhaps from taking far too long to switch Grosjean on); it was in keeping the designer of the car on board, in developing the car and a system that cost them a lot of money for zero return, and finally in the financial department. No matter how good the car was, it still failed to attract the required funding.

No driver is ever that much better; though some may be better suited to the car placed under their bum.

Edit: Forgot to add that Räikkönen is indeed the hero of 2007 in my book; despite Ferrari being able to provide him with the car he needed. (Just to clear any doubt from the minds of those who got stuck on my first sentence here. )

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

My first reaction to this post was that Räikkönen doesn't need defending. But then I realised that, depending on whose PR-nonsense one is partial to, it could mean defending Hamilton or Alonso or Räikkönen!

But whichever of those three drivers I look at, I still feel that Lotus's real problem wasn't in the driver's department (apart perhaps from taking far too long to switch Grosjean on); it was in keeping the designer of the car on board, in developing the car and a system that cost them a lot of money for zero return, and finally in the financial department. No matter how good the car was, it still failed to attract the required funding.

No driver is ever that much better; though some may be better suited to the car placed under their bum.

Edit: Forgot to add that Räikkönen is indeed the hero of 2007 in my book; despite Ferrari being able to provide him with the car he needed. (Just to clear any doubt from the minds of those who got stuck on my first sentence here. )

It is not that hard to understand whom i meant. Just think which driver NEEDS that season to be rated high. You will certainly see the result.

I can't help but think Hamilton or Alonso would have dragged the E21 to the Brazilian GP, still in WDC contention.Raikkonnen and Grosjean flubbed it.

Not if Ferrari paid them to 'mysteriously' develop sudden need to have surgery for issue they had for years. But then again, neither was paid as lavishly as Kimi, meaning Lotus could spend even more money developing the car and/or find pay funds faster.

And I don't blame Grosjean, he would be much higher if not for all the orders to let Kimi through or tactics set up to slow Kimi's rivals, or that backstab in one of last races together.

I can't help but think Hamilton or Alonso would have dragged the E21 to the Brazilian GP, still in WDC contention.Raikkonnen and Grosjean flubbed it.

Not if Ferrari paid them to 'mysteriously' develop sudden need to have surgery for issue they had for years. But then again, neither was paid as lavishly as Kimi, meaning Lotus could spend even more money developing the car and/or find pay funds faster.

And I don't blame Grosjean, he would be much higher if not for all the orders to let Kimi through or tactics set up to slow Kimi's rivals, or that backstab in one of last races together.

Come again? Alonso and Lewis are both on €20M, while Kimi has a base salary of just €3M. It's said he has a deal where he is paid a reported €40,000 per point, but that would still give him "only" €10M, half of what the others get (and that's assuming they don't get any performance incentives themselves, which is highly unlikely). Where do you work out that they aren't paid as "lavishly" as Kimi? Just how much do you think he's on?

BTW, how many points do you think Alonso would have were it not for "all the orders to let xxx through or tactics set up to slow xxx's rivals?" Or is it just Kimi you appear to have it in for?

As for being able to drag the Lotus to the Brazilian GP still in WDC contention, I can only assume you haven't been watching the races. Even Webber in the sister car couldn't stay in contention long before the season's end, and unless you believe the Lotus is quicker than the RBR(!) you must have a seriously inflated view of Alonso's or Lewis' abilities. Seb's been untouchable in the RBR and nobody, nobody has been even remotely close to him. I wonder where you feel the Lotus should have had wins which would have brought the deficit down. Which races in your opinion did they gift to Seb?

One of the Lotus problems was their slow qualy/start positions, similar to Ferraris'. But in the races Alonso was so much better than in qualy, whereas the Lotuses remained about the same in races as their qualy times. And the Mercedes started so much better/higher up the grids than Lotus and Ferrari, but slipped in the races to about Lotus average pace.

However looking at how much faster/better Alonso was than Massa, Raikkonen and Grosjean in races, the OP has a point about what Alonso could have done in a Lotus.

One of the Lotus problems was their slow qualy/start positions, similar to Ferraris'. But in the races Alonso was so much better than in qualy, whereas the Lotuses remained about the same in races as their qualy times. And the Mercedes started so much better/higher up the grids than Lotus and Ferrari, but slipped in the races to about Lotus average pace.

However looking at how much faster/better Alonso was than Massa, Raikkonen and Grosjean in races, the OP has a point about what Alonso could have done in a Lotus.

I respect your stats and you clearly have a wealth of information to back up your claims, but from a spectator's point of view I was always under the impression that e.g. Kimi was always much faster in the races than qualifying and made up a lot of places because of this. Feeling was always that if he qualified higher he may have been able to challenge even more but his regular podium appearances would suggest that his races were better than his qualifying. Ironically, Alonso hasn't always been the best qualifier himself so he may have been in the same boat!

What would you attribute his better race showing than qualifying performance if his speed remained constant?

One of the Lotus problems was their slow qualy/start positions, similar to Ferraris'. But in the races Alonso was so much better than in qualy, whereas the Lotuses remained about the same in races as their qualy times. And the Mercedes started so much better/higher up the grids than Lotus and Ferrari, but slipped in the races to about Lotus average pace.

However looking at how much faster/better Alonso was than Massa, Raikkonen and Grosjean in races, the OP has a point about what Alonso could have done in a Lotus.

I respect your stats and you clearly have a wealth of information to back up your claims, but from a spectator's point of view I was always under the impression that e.g. Kimi was always much faster in the races than qualifying and made up a lot of places because of this. Feeling was always that if he qualified higher he may have been able to challenge even more but his regular podium appearances would suggest that his races were better than his qualifying. Ironically, Alonso hasn't always been the best qualifier himself so he may have been in the same boat!

What would you attribute his better race showing than qualifying performance if his speed remained constant?

Kimi is also a great racer, and manages to keep out of trouble, is so consistent which I think accounts for his better race results than qualy. I measure gaps from the front and Kimi's races were only slightly closer than his qualy gap, whereas Fred's was almost half-a-second better in races than in qualy. Perhaps tyre management or treatment /response by the two cars came into it? This I don't know. By my calcs Kimi was slightly faster on season average than Fred in qualy but much slower in race average.